Ron Paul: So what if Crimea secedes?

posted at 8:41 pm on March 18, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

It’s been a while since we had a good session of pointing out how wrong-headed my quasi-isolationist tendencies are, so what better occasion than right after Ron Paul publishes another screed on the evils of meddling in the affairs of other nations? The Texan took to the pages of USA Today this week to pose the question of the day… Crimea Secedes. So what?

Residents of Crimea voted over the weekend on whether they would remain an autonomous region of Ukraine or join the Russian Federation. In so doing, they joined a number of countries and regions — including recently Scotland, Catalonia and Venice — that are seeking to secede from what they view as unresponsive or oppressive governments.

These latter three are proceeding without much notice, while the overwhelming Crimea vote to secede from Ukraine has incensed U.S. and European Union officials, and has led NATO closer to conflict with Russia than since the height of the Cold War.

There are some obvious points in his opening salvo which leave Paul open to criticism, but he settles in later to ask two questions which are worth taking a swing at. The first deals with the purist form of American isolationism.

Why does the U.S. care which flag will be hoisted on a small piece of land thousands of miles away?

This is pretty much the prototypical isolationist question, and the answer generally depends on which country you’re asking about. In a previous article, I took a stab at the question, What does the West owe Ukraine? And the answer – at least according to several foreign policy experts – is a bit more complicated than some might think. The Ukraine has proven themselves an unreliable ally to the West nearly as much as they have to Russia. And that’s looking at the question for the entirety of the Ukraine, not just the significantly smaller slice of it in Crimea.

And what does the West get in return, assuming we go to the mat on this one and stick up for a unified, unpartitioned Ukraine? It seems to be an open question as to precisely how much they know their own identity at this point and how solidified their internal instincts are. There are many nations with internal factions yearning to be free, but as we’ve seen in Egypt, among other places, those freedom fighters don’t automatically translate in to democracy minded, America loving patriots in all cases.

The second question Paul asks has no doubt drawn even more fire.

Critics point to the Russian “occupation” of Crimea as evidence that no fair vote could have taken place. Where were these people when an election held in an Iraq occupied by U.S. troops was called a “triumph of democracy”?

Leaving aside for the moment the not-too-subtle shot at the Iraq war, it does leave us with the question of whether or not the Crimea denizens might actually have some interest in rejoining Russia in some fashion. Allahpundit covered some of Ron Paul’s arguments about self-determination already, summed up thusly:

It’s “Reason” editor Matt Welch who challenges Paul on the uselessness of trying to hold a free and fair election in a province that’s being threatened by 80,000 Russian troops across the border. Paul’s among people who respect the non-interventionist approach to foreign policy, in other words, and even they seemingly can’t believe that he’s trying to frame this as a matter of “self-determination.” Even if the election were free and fair, remember that Crimea has an ethnic Russian majority in no small part because Stalin purged it of its Tatars decades ago.

Granted, they both raise a valid question of how “open” an election is when there are tens of thousands of foreign troops looking on, but in the case of Crimea it does leave room to wonder. The population in that area is significantly more ethnic Russian as well as being Russian speaking. But it goes deeper than that. Ukraine has been in all sorts of trouble. They are torn between the Russian Bear and the EU looking to find a victory in that nation. Ukraine is broke, and everyone seems to acknowledge that even if they fully join the EU they will need massive amounts of cash infusions just to keep their heads above water.

Further, situated where they are, they find themselves on the brink of potential military action at any moment. They have essentially no military force to speak of, and will be too weak to stand up to much of an assault from either direction. Russia, on the other hand, while not still a “superpower” in their own right, is still at least the number two nuclear force on the planet and maintains a substantial military capability. Is it so entirely crazy to think that those two factors in particular might leave some of the ethnic Russians in Crimea considering the benefits of throwing in their lot with Mother Russia?

It’s not a given in either case, but certainly worth thinking about. Ron Paul, as always, will go much further than he needs in the argument and fly the flag of keeping 100% hands off in all situations. I don’t agree with that, though sensible restraint is always a good idea before any sort of military engagement where possible. But when it comes to Crimea, are Paul’s underlying questions really that crazy?

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

If people want to hold free and fair elections concerning independence for breakaway regions and/or a return to the Motherland, they should be able to do so. I don’t care. On the other hand, I do not believe that Putin should be able to invade and occupy sovereign territory until it votes to return to Russia. If Putin continues such activities, we will likely get drawn in military eventually. After all, we know what happened the last time some leader started invading countries on the pretext of ‘protecting some people.’ If that is going to be where we end up, I’d rather try and stop it – first by using all non-military tools – before we get drawn into a years’ long, bloody engagement with an opponent that has gotten stronger with each conquest.

On the other hand, I do not believe that Putin should be able to invade and occupy sovereign territory until it votes to return to Russia.

Resist We Much on March 19, 2014 at 1:51 AM

I would normally agree but in this case Russia was responding to a coup sponsored by western governments that threatened its national interests. If the US/EU governments and billionaire tycoons are undemocratically interfering in the Ukraine then why shouldn’t Russia?

Frankly, in this case it sounds like it’s actually the USA and the EU that are the real troublemakers. They’re trying to box Russia in and capture their only port that doesn’t freeze in the winter, or so I’ve read. I guess they’re trying to shut out Russia hoping to cripple or destroy it. Why are we trying to destroy Russia? It would be one thing to change the regime, but it’s another to shrink and destroy the country of Russia itself. What are we going to do with all the people there once Russia is gone?

Frankly I think this is a case of fascist/socialist cronies in America and Europe in search of a war to profiteer from and a distraction from anti-incumbent sentiment.

After all, we know what happened the last time some leader started invading countries on the pretext of ‘protecting some people.

Yeah, the Soviet Union collapsed.

You are talking about Afghanistan, aren’t you? Or maybe you mean something more recent like the French invasion of Mali? Surely you don’t think the Nazis were the last people to invade for “protection,” do you?

As for Paul’s take on Iraq, I must have forgotten the plebiscite we held there. But, yes, if in early April 2003 we had held an election on the question of whether they wanted to stay invaded, I doubt anyone would have called it a “triumph of democracy.”

Frankly, in this case it sounds like it’s actually the USA and the EU that are the real troublemakers. They’re trying to box Russia in and capture their only port that doesn’t freeze in the winter, or so I’ve read. I guess they’re trying to shut out Russia hoping to cripple or destroy it. Why are we trying to destroy Russia? It would be one thing to change the regime, but it’s another to shrink and destroy the country of Russia itself. What are we going to do with all the people there once Russia is gone?
Frankly I think this is a case of fascist/socialist cronies in America and Europe in search of a war to profiteer from and a distraction from anti-incumbent sentiment.
FloatingRock on March 19, 2014 at 2:18 AM

Containing and preventing imperialist tendencies from a player whose history only knows such is not necessarily the either to the or’s dichotomy.

The Soviet Union was only involved as a partner in the invasion of one of the countries to which I alluded: Poland.

You are talking about Afghanistan, aren’t you?

Nope. I was talking about European countries and the Sudetenland, Austria, and Poland, specifically.

I bet you think that I supported the Afghan ground war, too.

Oh my!

Or maybe you mean something more recent like the French invasion of Mali?

Nope.

Surely you don’t think the Nazis were the last people to invade for “protection,” do you?

We were discussing Europe. Perhaps, you should read the thread.

As for Paul’s take on Iraq, I must have forgotten the plebiscite we held there. But, yes, if in early April 2003 we had held an election on the question of whether they wanted to stay invaded, I doubt anyone would have called it a “triumph of democracy.”

Maybe, you should read my post on Page 1 wherein I addressed Paul’s argument about Iraq.

Nope. I was talking about European countries and the Sudetenland, Austria, and Poland, specifically.

I bet you think that I supported the Afghan ground war, too.

Nope. I just think you don’t know much about history if you think the last time someone rode into a country declaring themselves the protectors of its people was 1939. Heck, even if I accepted your premise that you meant to restrict things to Europe, you’re still forgetting the Soviet actions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary; Russian actions in Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia (twice), and arguably Kosovo; Serb actions in Croatia and Bosnia; NATO actions in Bosnia and Kosovo; and the most obvious one, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus (technically Asian but considered European, e.g., an EU member). I might be forgetting some: Weren’t foreign troops involved in Macedonia? Shouldn’t Armenia’s invasion and occupation of a chunk of Azerbaijan be considered “European,” as Armenians are considered more European than Asian? And I’m ignoring the Soviet invasion and de facto occupation of, oh, half of Europe in the Great Patriotic War, but you get the idea. If you think no one’s invaded anyone in Europe to “protecting some people” post-1945, you really haven’t been paying attention.

This is pure national socialism. Swap the words “Russia” with “Germany’, “east” with “west” and it sounds exactly like something Goebbels would have written 80 years ago. Complete with attacks on capitalism and individualism.

Funny how some on “our side” actually falls for this collectivist nonsense.

I think more and more people are tired of this country’s nation
building. How much do we spend on that?

We have too many problems at home to take care of.

While this country goes bankrupt we, in essence, pay countries
to not do things. Pakistan? Why? We pay countries to have military bases. Why?
Our military protects the world. They should be paying us.
Wasn’t it some crackpot(s) in Puerto Rico (not sure) who led the charge for
the US to remove its military base from their island; the result
of that was a huge economic loss for the country. And these
things are always led by some crackpot. Always.

If we had the strongest military in the world (which we do (or did) until
Russia and China ramped up and Obama decided to destroy ours; after
building it up again after Clinton destroyed it the last time),
no one would dare attack us if they knew we had the will to sweep
down on them and strike hard and fast.

Not saying we shouldn’t help those countries who are allies and
put in an official request to help oust the bad guys, however,
let us use some common sense.

That said, I wish Ron Paul would retire and keep his big mouth
shut. Only because I think his crackpot mouth will eventually get
Rand Paul in trouble and I like that guy. Too many uninformed
keep attributing what Ron Paul says to Rand.

That said, I wish Ron Paul would retire and keep his big mouth
shut. Only because I think his crackpot mouth will eventually get
Rand Paul in trouble and I like that guy. Too many uninformed
keep attributing what Ron Paul says to Rand.

Amjean on March 19, 2014 at 8:54 AM

You are right. Many people may think Ron is Rand or vice versa. Low-info cretins. Even so, they still vote.

Rand may have the same problem as Jeb Bush had with his mom’s remarks about having enough Bushes and Clintons in the White House. Jeb said something about how it’s difficult to keep people who reach a certain age from just saying what they think. LOL.

I would guess that Ron will back off a bit. If nothing else, his wife will tell him to. And it is’t a hard argument to make. Rand is Ron’s political legacy so torpedoing his own son with crackpot remarks is contrary to Ron’s own interests. My guess is that his wife will make that clear if she has to. For now, it’s still early so it doesn’t matter much for the 2016 race.

It’s not a point to be made in a vacuum, but contextually. Ron Paul, and other isolationists love to say, “Why do *we* care about ‘a’ invading ‘b’?” The problem is not specifically one small nation “voting to return to it’s ethnic roots”…the issue is the leader of a large and getting larger world power, seeing some land, and taking it, “because he can”. In this case, you should remove the countries names, because contextually, this is 1939.

As for floating rock’s paranoid assertion that this whole event is theater written by secret, despotic “Corporate Types”…”yeah, just like Braun and BMW and IG FARBEN engineered WWII.”. Wake up, rock… “the Bank” is not out to get you…an egomaniac with an army has lost any fear of restraint or retaliation, and people are being murdered. Soon, I fear, by the tens of thousands.

Put up a poll they can vote 10,000 times via computer and make the old loon a fake winner once more. His cult have had so little to do of late being Rand Paul has keept his true self under raps so far.

Frankly, I think it’s now an opportunistic time for us to remove the dictators from Cuba, South America and anywhere else in this hemisphere Russia has interests. We should also move aggressively in the Arctic on land claims.

But this Administration is very busy playing golf and passing “sanctions” on a bunch of Russian individuals with no U.S. assets.

I would guess that Ron will back off a bit. If nothing else, his wife will tell him to. And it is’t a hard argument to make. Rand is Ron’s political legacy so torpedoing his own son with crackpot remarks is contrary to Ron’s own interests. My guess is that his wife will make that clear if she has to. For now, it’s still early so it doesn’t matter much for the 2016 race.

Toocon on March 19, 2014 at 9:31 AM

Let’s hope he listens to his wife. I think it is telling that Ron
Paul was out of the political chatter until his son, Rand, started
winning polls and is looking like a presidential contender. Now
he thinks that he, Ron, is somehow relevant again. Opportunist
old fool.

Ron Paul, 1936 called they want thier forigen policy back! This is wrong headed on soo many levels. An involved america is a safer america. Disengaging from the world is NEVER a good idea. We did that in the mid 90s and we ended up with 9-11-01. Some folks will never lean however.

The problem is not specifically one small nation “voting to return to it’s ethnic roots”…the issue is the leader of a large and getting larger world power, seeing some land, and taking it, “because he can”. In this case, you should remove the countries names, because contextually, this is 1939.

a5minmajor on March 19, 2014 at 9:40 AM

Really?? Do ya really think Russia is is going to invade Poland in search of Lebensraum?

This is not Germany going into Poland. This is Germany going into the Rhineland or Sudetenland.

Ron Paul, 1936 called they want thier forigen policy back! This is wrong headed on soo many levels. An involved america is a safer america. Disengaging from the world is NEVER a good idea. We did that in the mid 90s and we ended up with 9-11-01. Some folks will never lean however.
falcaner on March 19, 2014 at 10:56 AM

So much ignorance packed into so small a space.

Were we disengaged from the world when we took Spain’s overseas holdings away? Or did that “engagement” vis a vis the Philippines make Pearl Harbor inevitable?

“If only we’d been more engaged with the world, we might have avoided WWII!”

The pre-WWII “Isolationists” wouldn’t have been trying to implement isolationism had the US actually been isolationist.

1893: Coup in Hawaii
U.S. Marines land in the kingdom of Hawaii to aid the overthrow of Queen Lili’uokalani.

1898-1902: Spanish-American War
U.S. victories against Spain lead to the Treaty of Paris, which establishes the independence of Cuba, and cedes Puerto Rico and Guam to the U.S.. The U.S. also purchases the Philippines for $20 million.

1912: Occupation of Nicaragua
Marines arrive in Nicaragua to bolster the government of Adolfo Diaz; the last Marines depart in 1934.

1914: Tampico Affair
After U.S. Marines are arrested at Tampico, U.S. forces bombard Veracruz, Mexico, and occupy the city.

1915: Invasion of Haiti
U.S. Marines occupy Haiti after a civil war; a treaty between the U.S. and the Haitian Senate makes the island nation a virtual U.S. protectorate. Troops withdraw in 1934.

1916-1917: Expedition Against Villa
The U.S. military invades Northern Mexico to capture Mexican Pancho Villa, who had raided New Mexico, killing 18; U.S. forces numbering 11,000 withdraw, unable to capture Villa.

1917-1918: World War I
The U.S. ends three years of neutrality in the European conflict, declaring war on Germany. An armistice is declared November 11, 1918.

1918-1920: Siberian Expedition
The U.S. and other Allied troops invade Russia to protect war supplies during the Russian Revolution.

1927: Protection of Shanghai’s International Settlement
One hundred Marines land in Shanghai to defend U.S. property during a civil war there.
If only we had been more engaged with the world!

They’re trying to box Russia in and capture their only port that doesn’t freeze in the winter, or so I’ve read. I guess they’re trying to shut out Russia hoping to cripple or destroy it. Why are we trying to destroy Russia? It would be one thing to change the regime, but it’s another to shrink and destroy the country of Russia itself. What are we going to do with all the people there once Russia is gone?

Frankly I think this is a case of fascist/socialist cronies in America and Europe in search of a war to profiteer from and a distraction from anti-incumbent sentiment.

FloatingRock on March 19, 2014 at 2:18 AM

Wow, so ‘well informed’ you are…have you ever heard of Kaliningrad, yeah, the Ruskies already have a warm water port (ice free all year round)…as for the Western interference in Ukraine, you are an even worse tool than I thought…have you ever heard of Romania and how the ’89 revolution started there? Ceausescu, the dictator of the time used the same language like Putin uses (they were all trained at the KGB schools, communist party leaders and all), invoked fictional ‘Western agents’ for fomenting the protests…the thing is the protest started spontaneously in the streets there, next thing Ceausescu accused the West and ‘foreign elements’ (exactly like Putin did) for being behind the protests and ordered the military to shoot at the population/protesters…good thing is the general in charge shot himself and didn’t give that order…next thing the military sides with the protesters and thaat’s how revolution happened there…so, puhlease, if you are such a naive tool to believe the Russian propaganda, that’s your problem, you can go and live there as far as I am concerned…

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He’s a non-interventionist. Whether you agree with him or not, he doesn’t believe the United States should be involved in military intervention unless we’re under direct threat from that country. Paul is all for signing peace treaties, free trade, and declaring war against countries which threaten us.

I am no Russian or Ukraine expert, but after hearing both sides talk about this issue, I don’t see the big concern. Perhaps down the road, if Russia turns tyrannical, but right now, all what is Russia gaining more economic opportunities than trying to re-boot the Soviet Union.

The Crimean referendum had to take place with armed Russians present, as if not the junta’s thugs would have stopped it or perverted the results. After the anti-democratic coup, the default in Ukraine is not democracy.

As for the vote, it was legit. Foreign observers saw business as usual. And it makes sense. Crimeans were Russian anyway, just under Ukrainian rule, and they were frightened of the violent coup and the virulently anti-Russian junta, which as one of its first official acts banned the official use of Russian. That’s idea conditions for a landslide.

Could the Russians get numbers like that in western Ukraine? Of course not, not under any compulsion.

So much for our guarantee of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. In fact, so much for Russia’s guarantee of Ukraine’s territorial integrity.
The Ukrainians should never have given up their nuclear weapons, for only a nuclear power has its territorial integrity self-assured.
With that thought, the path forward for the Ukraine is obvious.
And Ron Paul is a doddering old fool.
unclesmrgol on March 20, 2014 at 1:25 AM

I don’t trust Mr Magoo, and I am suspicious of his son, in light of recent comments

Ron Paul is 100% correct. Bravo! We have to get our own house in order before we pretend to dictate how others should live. If the US didn’t have a $17.5 trillion unpayable debt not to mention unfunded social programs ponzi schemes(bless his heart Rick Perry was correct), then we could realistically make economic and/or military threats.

What an IDIOT! Lord Chamberlain the 2nd. It’s like a fire department saying, “Nawwwwww……let it get REALLY BIG” or “Well, it’s not burning my house”…..whadda maroon!!!
It sure makes me want to stay away from the son….